reddeadfandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:Weapon Pages
So, we are having a problem here. Large amounts of material that is not directly within the scope of the red dead wiki is being added to the weapon pages. As per tiktaalik's words. "Useless to gameplay, I agree - but it helps relate the fictional gameplay to real-life events. That transparency between fiction and non-fiction, reality and satire, is a huge theme of Rockstar's products. It would seem consistent to support that theme. I think we're needlessly restricting our scope and relegating this wiki to being on the same playing field as an FAQ, when we could easily exploit increased versatility and access to information." I completely agree that I want this to be more than just an FAQ, and this rule is only temporary. But we *need* consensus on this subject. What is good/right to place on a page, doesn't deviate from our scope like all hellfire, and can actually help to make this a better wiki. I'm sure some of you have thoughts about this. Although, as long as concensus is not reached, this rule will remain in effect, since we must manage all pages according to certain guidelines. If one admin thinks it should happen, while another thinks it's just "not okay" certain pages could have parts with history and other pages don't? That would be wrong. Please share your ideas. Lordofthelargepants The Zipper and 16:27, May 9, 2010 (UTC) :I agree with tik, However im no admin ofcourse, I mean adding The history of a weapon, Building or whatever really makes for an interesting read, And thus improving article quality. And as you said Rockstar Refers to the real world alot in their games with their Stereotypical way. :So i think we should be able to add this to our edits, It only improves our Article quality and as tik said we dont have Messy pages or anything. WugHD2.0 16:32, May 9, 2010 (UTC) ::look at this. All of that text was copied from wikipedia. That does not, at all, contribute to our overall article quality. It may make an "interesting read" for the people that are interested in old guns, but they should use wikipedia if they want an "interesting read" or learn about the actual gun. or, for instance, the Browning Auto 5 page. Check the history to see what I mean. That is just ridiculous. It would make it harder/more annoying for our readers to find out what they actually want, concerning the in-game variant of the weapon. It's simple, really. We can't put all of those facts, or a lot, up on the pages. I want to thin out here, what we exactly want on those pages, and what we could agree on as a "good" edit. Lordofthelargepants The Zipper and 16:40, May 9, 2010 (UTC) I totally agree, thats just too much. But i meant small pieces of text much like a Trivia section for example. I mean it is obvious that a Copy and paste from a wiki is just a wannabe edittor. If we can keep it to a few lines in an apart section it wont be a problem to tell a weapons history? WugHD2.0 16:45, May 9, 2010 (UTC) :Here is my take on the big picture. Above is what some editor made of it, below is what I thought it should be now. Sandbox :Notice the following. Citenotes removed, we don't link to the patenting article on wikipedia, people can figure out what that is by themselves (too much links is bad too). Some completely useless and irrelevant information is removed, some information is transformed into trivia, and others are slimmed down so to be informative still, but lighter to read. Lordofthelargepants The Zipper and 16:49, May 9, 2010 (UTC) Looks nice, organized and still informative. I think we as edittors should keep to The Sandbox reference you made when posting Historical facts. I mean i never agreed with the Wall of text you showed me before, even i would have reverted that edit if ive seen that :P . But yeah I like how you made that 'Mock-up' article in the sandbox. I think we as edittor should be able to post historical facts aslong as we dont degrade article quality. Rules are nice but not many listen to them anyway. Only the loyal wikia edittors and ofcourse the admins do. So i sometimes fail to see the point in making that much guidelines and policies. Btw TnT i put an idea up your talk page about RDN. WugHD2.0 16:56, May 9, 2010 (UTC) :I think it's best to link to Wikipedia in the external links section of articles. Especially if the infromation is indeed copypasted from Wikipedia, then it should definitely be linked. Ausir(talk) 13:26, May 13, 2010 (UTC) :::This issue came up again recently in my admin duties. To be clear, we're operating on independent administrator discretion. We should aim to make any relevant trivia notes concise and readable, only making the most relevant information available. Quality links should be used wherever possible to give further insight into the article subject. -- Tiktaalik 20:32, May 26, 2010 (UTC)